New Delhi: A high-profile legal challenge has been launched in the Supreme Court of India seeking a total ban on the use of metallic and partially metallic kinetic projectiles for crowd control. The petition, filed by retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad alongside two victims of the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” march, argues that pump-action rifles and projectile-action guns are inherently dangerous and violate constitutional protections regarding the use of force. The legal move follows a chaotic day in New Delhi where thousands of students, mobilized by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), attempted to march toward Parliament to demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over recurring examination paper leaks.
The petitioners, which include 25-year-old artist Prashant Kumar and 26-year-old Sheikh Irshad Mansoori, allege they sustained severe injuries from pellet fire while engaging in non-violent activities. According to the court filing, Kumar was participating in the peaceful demonstration when he was struck, while Mansoori claims he was merely in the vicinity of Connaught Place for personal documentation work when he was hit by indiscriminate fire from the Rapid Action Force (RAF). Both men contend that they displayed no aggressive conduct, challenging the necessity and proportionality of the force deployed by security personnel during the dispersal operations.
Legal arguments presented in the plea assert that the erratic trajectory of pellet projectiles renders them legally untenable as a means of crowd management. The petition characterizes these weapons as arbitrary and disproportionate, arguing that they fail to meet the legal threshold of the “least amount of necessary force” required by law enforcement guidelines. Beyond the call for a phase-out of the technology, the petitioners have requested that the Supreme Court mandate exemplary compensation for all those injured during the July 20 crackdown and ensure access to comprehensive medical treatment and long-term rehabilitation for victims.
The unrest on July 20 marked a significant escalation in the ongoing nationwide student movement against systemic flaws in the examination process. As demonstrators attempted to breach multiple police barricades in central Delhi, authorities responded with tear gas and a heavy lathi-charge. While viral social media footage captured instances of police manhandling protesters, the Delhi Police have officially defended their conduct. Law enforcement officials maintain that the use of force was a localized response necessitated only after specific segments of the crowd turned violent and engaged in stone-pelting against officers.
This filing joins a growing cluster of petitions currently before the judiciary regarding the handling of student protests at Jantar Mantar and other sites across the country. As the Supreme Court considers the plea, the case highlights an intensifying debate over the ethics of non-lethal weaponry and the balance between maintaining public order and upholding the right to peaceful assembly. The outcome of this petition could set a definitive national precedent for police protocols regarding crowd dispersal in democratic protests.
